In terms of gallons of ink however, no story can beat the flood triggered by Eric Lichtblau and James Risen (*) by reporting on bank data surveillance by the US governement. As a matter of fact, the US administration routinely monitors movements of funds across its borders with the help of SWIFT, a service which routs electronic money transfers between banks and is located in Belgium. Ensued a lively exchange between the media and the US government as to the merits of disclosing this information to the public. The media highlighted concerns about privacy and the US government the need for secrecy to efficiently combat terrorist networks.

As the story runs its course, bipartisan counterterrorists Richard A. Clarke and Roger W. Cressey (**) provide a dampening conclusion: "it is an election year". Does this amount to nothing then but a ritual raining of elephants and donkeys? Do we just need to wait? The sky will be blue again and the sun will be bright. I think not.

Electoral politics and the economics of news reporting both go a long way to explain the flood of ink. But Bill O'Reilly (***), associated with Fox News, correctly identifies the wider stakes: "all [government] investigations might lead to privacy violations". How indeed balance personal privacy and government efficiency in the present Information Age? Let me then take this opportunity to sum up what I believe is the basis for a satisfactory solution:

no private data is collected until and unless the tests have flagged a suspicious activity

all tests used in the detection process remain secret, unknown to all parties besides the government

Mind, I do not claim the three principles stated above make for swift and easy solutions. In particular finding the best tests for detection remains an issue as such tests need to evolve over time. But no efficient outcome is possible if everybody fights about extending one's rights rather than discharging one's duties:

to the executive branch, process definition and implementation, with the rights to keep its own tests a secret

to the legislative branch, process approval

to the judiciary branch, redress in case of process violation

to the media, the rights and the duty to inform the public about processes material to security and privacy

to each person, the rights to keep one's own data private, with the duty to steer clear of abetting terrorism and other criminal activities.

In this perspective, the legality of US Government actions under current laws, both domestic and international, is a mere technicality. The more indiscriminately the US Government tries to access personal data, the more it invites the legitimate scrutiny of the media. The more the US government confuses what should be a public process with what ought to remain secret tests of detecting criminal activities, the more likely secrets may leak as the process is unveiled under media pressure.
There is a better way.

Philippe Coueignoux

(*).... Bank Data Sifted in Secret By US To Block Terror, by Eric Lichtblau and James Risen (New York Times) - June 23, 2006